The Right To Bear Arms

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

The People are the militia.

You are either well regulated or not.

No one is unconnected with the militia.

Moon Bats are always confused about the term "well regulated". It means well functioning.

The James Madison Research Library and Information Center

"In colonial times the term ‘well regulated’ meant ‘well functioning’ ― for this was the meaning of those words at that time, as demonstrated by the following passage from the original 1789 charter of the University of North Carolina: ‘Whereas in all well regulated governments it is the indispensable duty of every Legislatures to consult the happiness of a rising generation…’ Moreover the Oxford English Dictionary defines ‘regulated’ among other things as ‘properly disciplined;’ and it defines ‘discipline’ among other things as ‘a trained condition.’"

The right wing is always clueless and causeless concerning terms in our Constitution.

Wellness of regulation must be prescribed by Congress for the Militia of the United States.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.

Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.

1A says "Congress shall make no law"
3A says "No soldier shall"
4A says "shall not be violated"
5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
6A manages to not do a negative
7A also
8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
9A says "shall not be construed"

Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.

All of these Amendments have limits.

But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.

Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.

Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.

Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.

Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.

The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.

Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient. There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction). Otherwise, no rights are preserved.

 

[danielpalos]

That phrase "shall not be infringed" really confuses you, huh? Probably the presence of a two-syllable word.

Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?

Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.

As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.

In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.

Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.

NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.

This isn't so clear cut.

The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.

Which is rubbish, right?

So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That's a nice sentiment. Not Constitutional, but nice.

LOL. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

It is federal doctrine and current practice.

 

[sakinago]

But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?

And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.

You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.

As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?

And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.

Time to get an education, me thinks.

Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.

And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.

So, gun control is supposed to stop all murders or what?

The ban in 1997 was with handguns. What it was designed to stop was mass murders, because in 1996 a guy walked into a school and shot it up. Since 1997 there haven't been any like this.

Gun murders increased due to Yardies bringing guns into the country. The UK govt decided to tackle this problem and gun murders went down again.

But, to summaries.

The UK has a murder rate 1/4 the rate of US murders.
The US has 3/4 of all murders committed with guns. About 11,000 murders a year are committed with guns.
The UK's highest murder level with guns was just under 100 in a year. Time this by 5 and you get 500, compared to 11,000. A MASSIVE difference there.

Do it work? Yes, it works.

Yes, Switzerland is safe. Why?

The IMF says Switzerland is number 2 in the world for GDP. So does the World Bank, the UN says it's fourth. The countries above are Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Monaco. The latter two aren't actual countries anyway. They're more or less tax havens. Luxembourg is a financial center and has a lot of foreigners there.

GDP is about $80,000 per person. The US is about $57,000 to put it in comparison.

On the poverty gap index Switzerland has a rate half the US's rate. And poverty is relative, it's half the US's yet has a higher GDP.

That's Switzerland, it's a rich country, it doesn't encourage ghettos, it doesn't ignore its social problems, it has a 7 person Executive where members are promoted from the legislature on a merit based system, rather than the US which is just a prom queen popularity contest. It's legislature is elected by proportional representation so all the people basically have a part to play in their politics, rather than forcing people into two political parties with no real choice.

All in all the differences between Switzerland and the US are that Switzerland is run by the Swiss, and in the US it's run by the rich, for the rich.

That plays a massive part here. Guns exacerbate the problems in the US.

Still, 17 our of 57 murders in Switzerland were committed with guns. It's quite a high number, in comparison. The thing is, it's murder rate is much lower.

So it’s not about the guns...

Not all of it is about guns.

Guns EXACERBATE the situation.

But I'll say this. Until the US sorts out its political system, nothing will change, nothing can change, and people will continue to die.

Things are complicated, if you try and simplify them, you'll just come to the wrong answers.

Yea the difference here is that guns are a constitutionally protected right. Because a free society doesn’t exist where the government has a monopoly of force. It may take some time before people wake up one day and realize, “oh shit, I’m totally subject to whatever this government decides to do, and I can’t do anything about it.” This country was designed to protect the individual above all, not a group of people, not the poor vs rich, not white vs black, not blue colar vs white. You are not to be labeled/defined by some group, no matter what color you are or your background, you are to be judged as yourself, not everyone else around you.

We’ve done nothing but complicate the situation, and we do so to try to eliminate tragedy. There is no way to do that, you may come close with a government using an iron fist to keep its population in line, but that’s a bigger tragedy. We were given the option in this country to not be a victim. And that may mean you may need to use a gun to protect yourself. Most cases you don’t even have to fire it. And if you choose to become an assialiant we have a justice system to remedy that.

And if guns excacerbate the situation, well crime has been dropping like a rock, while gun sales and owners keep on climbing. They aren’t exacerbating the situation now. When does that exacerbation kick in?

And if the economics are an issue, we’ve been using government more and more and more and more and more to try to fix that issue for the past 100 years and it’s only made the situation worse. We keep complicating it. The only thing that does is grow government, since they always need more and more money to fix what they are to incompetent to do, or problems they start themselves.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Government is the cause of, and universally-proposed solution to, all of life's problems.

 

[danielpalos]

Well regulated militia are declared Necessary to the security of a free State.

The People are the militia.

You are either well regulated or not.

No one is unconnected with the militia.

Then they would not have included the phrase the people. The well regulated line is a qualifier to the following line, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

The People are the militia.

 

[danielpalos]

The right to bear arms is the right to be in the militia. I know this because the FOUNDING FATHERS said so, and I have the documents to prove it.

There is no right to be in the militia; militia membership was an obligation impressed on free white men.

There is no right for citizens to organize themselves into militia, train or drill -- see Presser v Illinois.

.

You're looking at it from the wrong perspective.

There was both a right and a duty.

The duty was the state needed you.

However the Militia was seen as the ultimate check and balance against a tyrannical govt. As such a duty to fight a tyrannical govt isn't really there, because the Militia can be called up to the Federal or State govt's control.

What they wanted was a check which the people could use. Therefore it was a right, to fight against tyranny of their own government.

Now, there might have been a duty to be in the militia, but then there would have also been a duty to own arms. Was anyone COMPELLED to keep arms? No. Therefore if individuals have the right to KEEP ARMS, they also have the right to be in the militia.

You don't understand Presser v. Illinois.

There is ONE MILITIA (or 50, depending on how you look at it), it's described in Article 1, Section 8.

This is because they didn't want to destroy freedom by having any old militia walking around. It was a militia which had certain controls on it too.

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress;"

This militia has state appointed officers, and training as authorized by Congress.

This is the Militia you have a right to be in.

We know this.

Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution

In Congress Mr Gerry used "bear arms" synonymously with "militia duty" and Mr Jackson used it synonymously with "render military service". They were worried, in this instance that the feds could prevent individuals from being in the militia if they were deemed to have religious scruples, so they got rid of that particular clause of the Amendment, because they felt that it would be interpreted to give power to the feds to prevent people being in the militia.

The whole text is about that, read it.

Also, they made the "unorganized militia" in the Dick Act of 1903, because they knew if they made the National Guard, that individuals could demand to be in it, reducing the effectiveness of the militia. So they "unorganized militia" was a way of saying "you have your right to be in the militia, see you're already in it, so stop complaining" while keeping them away from the actual effective militia.

Only well regulated militia of the People may not be Infringed.

Paragraph (2) of DC v. Heller only applies to the People who are the unorganized militia.

 

[emilynghiem]

This has changed. The 2A has only recently been made relevant for the state and local governments.

Basically you need to write something to suggest that a right cannot be violated.

1A says "Congress shall make no law"
3A says "No soldier shall"
4A says "shall not be violated"
5A says "No person shall" "nor shall any person"
6A manages to not do a negative
7A also
8A says "Excessive bail shall not be required"
9A says "shall not be construed"

Seems like the Founders wanted to mix up the wording a little bit. However Congress can make laws prohibiting free exercise of religion for those after due process. By locking them up it can limit their religious freedom. It can also decide which religions aren't really religion and prohibit such practices, like ritual executions for example.

All of these Amendments have limits.

But, those limits are only placed on those who have been found guilty of a crime and have lost their liberty.

Of course all rights have limits if the specific manner of exercising those rights infringes on the liberties of others.

Carrying a gun, in and of itself, does not infringe on the liberties of others.

Keeping a machine gun does not, in and of itself, infringe on the liberties of others.

Free speech is limited if it infringes on the liberty of others, like putting someone in direct peril by yelling fire in a crowded theater, causing people to be trampled.

The free exercise of religion is also limited if one's religion demands human sacrifice.

Due process is required before limiting one's rights, but due process alone is not sufficient. There must also be a case-specific, compelling reason for such a limit (like criminal prosecution and conviction). Otherwise, no rights are preserved.

Yes and no Bootney Lee Farnsworth and frigidweirdo
1. with citizens bearing arms for defending law, for lawabiding purposes,
that is within the law
2. the question is people who "disrupt the peace" or "threaten security of others"
because they don't have law abiding intent and purpose, but intent to violate laws.

How do we police THAT without violating the due process/liberty/rights of LAW abiding citizens
and only screen out the DANGEROUS people who if they got into guns WOULD abridge
the right of others to safety, security and protections of the law?

We don't agree how or where to screen out the DIFFERENCE between these two.
So that's why one side argues:
you are going too far and penalizing/depriving law abiding citizens by the overreaching way you are applying the laws to restrict guns from abusers who aren't seeking to defend laws
And the other side argues:
you aren't protecting citizens from abuse of the law in the hands of criminals

The solution I recommend is to work with local districts,
between police and teachers unions, civic associations per neighborhood,
and district, city and county officials including party reps.
And work out a plan for training and screening people so these
residents in each community have an agreed plan and process among THEMSELVES.
It cannot come from the top down IMPOSED on residents
or it gets into the debate on who has authority to decide for others.
The PEOPLE affected by the local policy need to decide democratically
among themselves.

So this will include BOTH schools of thought, input from all people affected
IN THAT REGION regardless if they believe more liberal or conservative
approaches to Second Amendment rights and govt regulations.

If we break it down locally, then people have a chance to work out
a policy that assures their rights AND safety without compromising one for the other.
A good mediated agreement tends to end up with both sides giving and taking equally.
They end up finding alternative ways to resolve objections, so the sides agree it is fair,
but it usually ends up with solutions that neither side started with, but a mix of ideas they can agree on.

This is best one locally because of diversity of individuals in each district.
But the best ideas from one district can be adapted by others if they work.
They will still vary, in order to include the representation of the people actually affected.

Local police already have their own Mission Statements.
the HPD mission statement is linked here www.ethics-commission.net
So this is already localized per police, and can be expanded to each community
that hires their own police similar to campus security.

Frankly if I were a teacher or police working in a district,
I would get with my UNION and collectively DEMAND that "as a condition of employment"
in order for workers to be SAFE in a district, all residents would have to
sign agreements to follow laws, be trained to comply with procedures to avoid violent conflict, including training and access to a grievance/mediation process for reporting abuses by anyone,
and agree to screening and counseling for any complaints of abusive or addictive disorder deemed a threat by the local ordinance standards *the residents AGREE to pass and enforce.*
It has to be agreed locally, or the same argument comes up as to who has authority to dictate to others. Nobody does when it comes to PRESCREENING for dangers or abuses BEFORE any crime is committed. Preemptive/preventative policies should be VOLUNTARILY agreed to as the standard for that school campus or district that the police and residents set up for THEMSELVES.

The LAPD mission statement mentions "voluntary compliance"
so we can learn and borrow from other models
how local police apply Constitutional enforcement
to public safety at a local level. And each community would need to
work this out with their local police and AGREE what standards
and procedures to enforce and comply with so everyone agrees it is fair, safe and respects rights equally.

Both the right to bear arms, the right to due process and not depriving people of liberty
who aren't breaking laws, and the right to peace and security.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Yes and no Bootney Lee Farnsworth and frigidweirdo
1. with citizens bearing arms for defending law, for lawabiding purposes,
that is within the law
2. the question is people who "disrupt the peace" or "threaten security of others"
because they don't have law abiding intent and purpose, but intent to violate laws.
How do we police THAT without violating the due process/liberty/rights of LAW abiding citizens and only screen out the DANGEROUS people who if they got into guns WOULD abridge the right of others to safety, security and protections of the law?

I am reminded of The Minority Report. It is a sci-fi book about these three mutants who could foresee crimes before they were committed, and based on those visions, the person who would commit the crime was arrested and prosecuted for the crime they were going to commit. It was adapted into a Tom Cruise movie about 15 years ago.

It is impossible to predict who would commit gun crimes. Doing so is like the bullshit done in The Minority Report.

I don't understand why some people cannot accept that they cannot act preemptively to prevent potential crime without serious and unjust infringements on liberty.

The question every citizen should ask himself/herself is:

Do I want a safety guarantee or do I want a liberty guarantee?

If one wants a safety guarantee, there are plenty of nations on this planet that are suitable for such a person. It is a delusion worthy of therapy and medication to think that such a guarantee could exist, but I think people should be free to go live a captive, subjugated lifestyle...somewhere OTHER than here. AKA, get the fuck out, you commie.

 

[emilynghiem]

Yes and no Bootney Lee Farnsworth and frigidweirdo
1. with citizens bearing arms for defending law, for lawabiding purposes,
that is within the law
2. the question is people who "disrupt the peace" or "threaten security of others"
because they don't have law abiding intent and purpose, but intent to violate laws.
How do we police THAT without violating the due process/liberty/rights of LAW abiding citizens and only screen out the DANGEROUS people who if they got into guns WOULD abridge the right of others to safety, security and protections of the law?

I am reminded of The Minority Report. It is a sci-fi book about these three mutants who could foresee crimes before they were committed, and based on those visions, the person who would commit the crime was arrested and prosecuted for the crime they were going to commit. It was adapted into a Tom Cruise movie about 15 years ago.

It is impossible to predict who would commit gun crimes. Doing so is like the bullshit done in The Minority Report.

I don't understand why some people cannot accept that they cannot act preemptively to prevent potential crime without serious and unjust infringements on liberty.

The question every citizen should ask himself/herself is:

Do I want a safety guarantee or do I want a liberty guarantee?

If one wants a safety guarantee, there are plenty of nations on this planet that are suitable for such a person. It is a delusion worthy of therapy and medication to think that such a guarantee could exist, but I think people should be free to go live a captive, subjugated lifestyle...somewhere OTHER than here. AKA, get the fuck out, you commie.

Dear Bootney Lee Farnsworth
You are assuming the screening would be for criminal reasons.
What about NEUTRAL screening for Ebola or Diabetes or Cancer?
Screening for criminal or mental disorders known to become unsafe or deadly,
including dementia or Alzheimers
DOES NOT HAVE TO GET CRIMINALIZED.

When medical science catches up and people can get prescreened
and monitored like we do with cancer stages or levels of diabetes,
this can be completely VOLUNTARY.

I agree with you it should NOT be involuntary.
I know people who lost their freedom and rights INVOLUNTARILY
because authority was abused to declare them incompetent.

So this system would set up means to safeguard
against abuses already going on.

If we base it on medically proven science that even
the people themselves agree to follow, then it's not forced or
have anything to do with criminalizing it. In fact, we need to
DECRIMINALIZE illness and treat these NEUTRALLY as medical issues.

 

[hadit]

Confuses me. How come the insane can't have guns, or prisoners?

Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.

As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.

In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.

Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.

NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.

This isn't so clear cut.

The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.

Which is rubbish, right?

So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That's a nice sentiment. Not Constitutional, but nice.

LOL. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

It is federal doctrine and current practice.

I guess no one pays attention to the SC either.

 

[danielpalos]

Because if people are not legally competent, they require a guardian
to be legally responsible for them including them having access to guns or using them.

As for prisoners, if the crime for which you are convicted calls for deprivation of liberty and freedom
then you can lose rights by the laws.

In general, right of the people implies law abiding citizens.
you call this well-regulated militia, but it means citizens who commit to uphold and defend the laws not violate them.

Prisoners, being convicted of crimes, have violated laws and thus merit loss of liberties.
If people are found to be insane and not able to comply with laws,
they can also lose their rights to guardianship.

NOTE: in cases of PTSD for victims of rape or other crimes,
or in cases of veterans, this is still contested if such "mental ill" conditions
should render such people barred from defending themselves with guns.

This isn't so clear cut.

The argument being presented is that it says "shall not be infringed", and therefore this means that the right to keep and bear arms shall NOT BE INFRINGED EVER.

Which is rubbish, right?

So the 2A says "shall not be infringed" but this means that it CAN BE infringed upon.

Well regulated militia may not be Infringed when keeping and bearing Arms for their State or the Union.

That's a nice sentiment. Not Constitutional, but nice.

LOL. Nobody takes the right wing seriously about Constitutional law.

It is federal doctrine and current practice.

I guess no one pays attention to the SC either.

Sure they do. The Supreme Court fixed the precedent of ignoring the first clause or paragraph in favor of the second clause or paragraph.

 

[2aguy]

This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.

Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.

I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.

However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.

Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.

Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.

Um, her position is a little more than simply "not liking guns." And why should only "important" people be protected? That statement shows the hypocrisy of liberals who talk about "equality." All people are equal, so I hope you're not actually saying that only important people (i.e. your dear leaders) deserve protection.

Fine, it's a little more than "not liking guns", but the logic is fucked up.

Taking guns away from society would probably make things SAFER. So the logic is in reverse. She's saying "we need guns to protect ourselves" but it's the guns being used to ATTACK that are the problem.

We had an entire world without guns .......how did that work out at the time? The strong raped, robbed and enslaved the weak.......guns allow the weak to fight off the strong...that is how civilization came into being.....

 

[2aguy]

Fine, it's a little more than "not liking guns", but the logic is fucked up.

Taking guns away from society would probably make things SAFER. So the logic is in reverse. She's saying "we need guns to protect ourselves" but it's the guns being used to ATTACK that are the problem.

When you make it more and more difficult for law abiding citizens to protect themselves, all you're doing is shifting the balance of power to criminals and the government.

It is unrealistic to say we can take guns away from society, because the only way to do that would be to turn us into a totalitarian, unfree police state... is that what you want? And even then, criminals will still find ways to get guns, so ultimately, all you're doing is disarming good people, creating sitting ducks, and turning us into a police state where criminals and the government are empowered.

Really?

The problem with your argument is that the US seems to have gone completely in the opposite direction.

In the US the criminals have more power because they have guns. Murders are FOUR TIMES HIGHER in the US than compared to most other First World countries. This isn't the power of the people to protect themselves. With guns, they die more often.

As for politicians. The US has a political system which leads to the rich having power over the people.

No....Britain has gone in the opposite direction, they banned and confiscated guns and now their gun crime rate and their violent crime rate are skyrocketing....

As to murder.....that is a matter of criminal culture.....our criminals murder each other more often....but again, Britain and Europe are catching up, their cultures can no longer civilize their young males, or the young males they are importing from the 3rd World....

The United States?

We went from 200 million guns in private hands in the 1990s and 4.7 million people carrying guns for self defense in 1997...to close to 400-600 million guns in private hands and over 16.3 million people carrying guns for self defense in 2017...guess what happened...
-- gun murder down 49%

--gun crime down 75%

--violent crime down 72%

Gun Homicide Rate Down 49% Since 1993 Peak; Public Unaware

Compared with 1993, the peak of U.S. gun homicides, the firearm homicide rate was 49% lower in 2010, and there were fewer deaths, even though the nation’s population grew. The victimization rate for other violent crimes with a firearm—assaults, robberies and sex crimes—was 75% lower in 2011 than in 1993. Violent non-fatal crime victimization overall (with or without a firearm) also is down markedly (72%) over two decades.

 

[2aguy]

This just shows how fucked up right wing logic is.

Hillary says she doesn't like guns. But in the US there are guns, and as long as there are guns important people need to be protected by people with guns.

I don't like guns. I went to South Africa and I bought pepper spray. However if I lived in South Africa (you'd have to make me, kicking and screaming) I'd buy a gun because this is the only way I'd feel safe.

However I prefer to live in places where I DON'T NEED A GUN.

Hillary having to be surrounded by armed people might be one reason why she doesn't like guns.

Or probably better said, she's the eternal politician and she'll take the policies she thinks will make her win. But that's a different matter.

So you do want to get rid of all guns.

Not necessarily.

I prefer society that is safer.

Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?

The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.

Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?

Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.

That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.

Yeah...you don't know what you are talking about...this is Britain today....far more violent than the U.S......

10 years after the ban....

Culture of violence: Gun crime goes up by 89% in a decade | Daily Mail Online

The latest Government figures show that the total number of firearm offences in England and Wales has increased from 5,209 in 1998/99 to 9,865 last year - a rise of 89 per cent.

The number of people injured or killed by guns, excluding air weapons, has increased from 864 in 1998/99 to a provisional figure of 1,760 in 2008/09, an increase of 104 per cent .

Last year.....



Firearms amnesty as UK gun crime rises 27% this year

The amnesty comes less than a month after national figures revealed the number of crimes involving firearms in England and Wales increased by 27% to 6,696 in the year ending June 2017.

Gun crime in London increases by 42% - BBC News

Gun crime offences in London surged by 42% in the last year, according to official statistics.
---------------

Top trauma surgeon reveals shocking extent of London’s gun crime

A leading trauma surgeon has told how the number of patients treated for gunshot injuries at a major London hospital has doubled in the last five years.

----

He said the hospital’s major trauma centre had seen a bigger rise in gunshot injuries compared to knife wounds and that the average age of victims was getting younger.

-----

Last year, gun crime offences in London increased for a third year running and by 42 per cent, from 1,793 offences in 2015/16 to 2,544 offences in 2016/17. Police have seized 635 guns off the streets so far this year.

Dr Griffiths, who also teaches medical students, said: “Our numbers of victims of gun injury have doubled [since 2012]. Gunshot injuries represent about 2.5 per cent of our penetrating trauma.

-----

Dr Griffiths said the average age of gun crime victims needing treatment at the hospital had decreased from 25 to the mid to late teens since 2012.

He added that medics at the Barts Health hospital’s major trauma centre in Whitechapel had seen a bigger rise in patients with gun injuries rather than knife wounds and that most were caused by pistols or shotguns.

Met Police commander Jim Stokley, who was also invited to speak at the meeting, said that handguns and shotguns were the weapons of choice and that 46 per cent of London’s gun crime discharges were gang-related.

He said: “We believe that a lot of it is associated with the drugs trade, and by that I mean people dealing drugs at street level and disagreements between different gangs.”

--------------

Violent crime on the rise in every corner of the country, figures suggest

But analysis of the figures force by force, showed the full extent of the problem, with only one constabulary, Nottinghamshire, recording a reduction in violent offences.

The vast majority of police forces actually witnessed double digit rises in violent crime, with Northumbria posting a 95 per cent increase year on year.

Of the other forces, Durham Police recorded a 73 per cent rise; West Yorkshire was up 48 per cent; Avon and Somerset 45 per cent; Dorset 39 per cent and Warwickshire 37 per cent.

Elsewhere Humberside, South Yorkshire, Staffordshire, Essex, Hertfordshire, Kent, Wiltshire and Dyfed Powys all saw violence rise by more than a quarter year on year.

 

[2aguy]

Really?

The problem with your argument is that the US seems to have gone completely in the opposite direction.

In the US the criminals have more power because they have guns. Murders are FOUR TIMES HIGHER in the US than compared to most other First World countries. This isn't the power of the people to protect themselves. With guns, they die more often.

As for politicians. The US has a political system which leads to the rich having power over the people.

I think you missed the point. Yes, obviously criminals have guns, but since criminals by definition do not obey the law, more gun laws is not going to make a difference except for making it harder for law-abiding citizens to protect themselves. There are already thousands of gun laws on the books.

So are you advocating gun confiscation for everyone on a national scale.... in other words, turning us into a police state?

Wait, criminals never obey the law? Oh, come off it. They might break a few laws, but then even the "law abiding" break laws on a daily basis.

So, more guns laws aren't going to make a difference. Maybe not. Therefore you need to STOP THE SUPPLY OF GUNS.

This is the biggest problem for guns in the US. As "law abiding" people can get guns easily, so too can criminals. Guns are an essential item. In the UK they're not. They're a luxury item for criminals, something not to be lost on frivolous crimes.

Do you think the UK is a police state?

What I advocate is A) reduction of guns in society (doesn't need to be all guns disappearing, about 4% of British people have guns) and B) change the political system to Proportional Representation so that people actually get to choose their politics, choose their politicians and make it harder for the rich to control everything. Then you don't need to fear the politicians you think you're electing.

The U.K. is experiencing an increase in gun crime...after they banned guns......up 27% over the entire country, just last year, and up 42% in London alone....

In the U.S.....gun crime has gone down, 75%...gun murder down 49%.......violent crime down 72%...

You don't know what you are talking about.....

 

[2aguy]

Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?

The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.

Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?

Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.

That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.

But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?

And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.

You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.

As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?

And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.

Time to get an education, me thinks.

Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.

And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.

So, gun control is supposed to stop all murders or what?

The ban in 1997 was with handguns. What it was designed to stop was mass murders, because in 1996 a guy walked into a school and shot it up. Since 1997 there haven't been any like this.

Gun murders increased due to Yardies bringing guns into the country. The UK govt decided to tackle this problem and gun murders went down again.

But, to summaries.

The UK has a murder rate 1/4 the rate of US murders.
The US has 3/4 of all murders committed with guns. About 11,000 murders a year are committed with guns.
The UK's highest murder level with guns was just under 100 in a year. Time this by 5 and you get 500, compared to 11,000. A MASSIVE difference there.

Do it work? Yes, it works.

Yes, Switzerland is safe. Why?

The IMF says Switzerland is number 2 in the world for GDP. So does the World Bank, the UN says it's fourth. The countries above are Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Monaco. The latter two aren't actual countries anyway. They're more or less tax havens. Luxembourg is a financial center and has a lot of foreigners there.

GDP is about $80,000 per person. The US is about $57,000 to put it in comparison.

On the poverty gap index Switzerland has a rate half the US's rate. And poverty is relative, it's half the US's yet has a higher GDP.

That's Switzerland, it's a rich country, it doesn't encourage ghettos, it doesn't ignore its social problems, it has a 7 person Executive where members are promoted from the legislature on a merit based system, rather than the US which is just a prom queen popularity contest. It's legislature is elected by proportional representation so all the people basically have a part to play in their politics, rather than forcing people into two political parties with no real choice.

All in all the differences between Switzerland and the US are that Switzerland is run by the Swiss, and in the US it's run by the rich, for the rich.

That plays a massive part here. Guns exacerbate the problems in the US.

Still, 17 our of 57 murders in Switzerland were committed with guns. It's quite a high number, in comparison. The thing is, it's murder rate is much lower.

You don't know what you are talking about.....Britain was averaging a mass public shooting once every 10 years...and that didn't change....

Cumbria shootings - Wikipedia

The Cumbria shootings occurred on 2 June 2010 when a lone gunman, Derrick Bird, killed 12 people and injured 11 others before killing himself in Cumbria, England.

And they almost had 2 in the last two years....

Which British gun control law stopped this kid? The only reason it wasn't a mass shooting? He put it on facebook and the cops saw it.....

British teen sentenced to life for planned school attack



Despite some of the tightest gun control on the planet, a British man was able to acquire a handgun, extended mags and explosives as part of a plot to attack his former school.

Liam Lyburd, 19, of Newcastle upon Tyne, was sentenced to life imprisonment this week on eight charges of possessing weapons with intent to endanger life.

As noted by the BBC, Lyburd gathered a cache that included a Glock 19, three 33-round magazines, 94 hollow-point bullets, CS gas, five pipe bombs and two other improvised explosive devices despite the country’s long history of civilian arms control.

According to court documents, Lyburd planned to use the weapons in an attack on Newcastle College, from which he had been expelled two years prior for poor attendance. He was arrested last November after two Northumbria Police constables visited him at his home on a tip from an individual who encountered threats and disturbing pictures posted by Lyburd online.

Despite a defense that portrayed the reclusive man as living in a fantasy world, Lyburd was found guilty in July.

The internet-savvy teen obtained the Glock and other items through Evolution Marketplace, a successor to the Silk Road, a long-time “dark web” site in which users could buy and sell everything from illegal narcotics to munitions using Bitcoin cryptocurrency.

In court, Lyburd testified that buying the Glock was so easy it was “like buying a bar of chocolate.”

He obtained funds for his purchases through a complex extortion scheme in which he used online malware to infect computers, which he in turn held for ransom from their owners.

 

[2aguy]

Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?

The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.

Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?

Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.

That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.

But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?

And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.

You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.

As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?

And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.

Time to get an education, me thinks.

Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.

And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.

So, gun control is supposed to stop all murders or what?

The ban in 1997 was with handguns. What it was designed to stop was mass murders, because in 1996 a guy walked into a school and shot it up. Since 1997 there haven't been any like this.

Gun murders increased due to Yardies bringing guns into the country. The UK govt decided to tackle this problem and gun murders went down again.

But, to summaries.

The UK has a murder rate 1/4 the rate of US murders.
The US has 3/4 of all murders committed with guns. About 11,000 murders a year are committed with guns.
The UK's highest murder level with guns was just under 100 in a year. Time this by 5 and you get 500, compared to 11,000. A MASSIVE difference there.

Do it work? Yes, it works.

Yes, Switzerland is safe. Why?

The IMF says Switzerland is number 2 in the world for GDP. So does the World Bank, the UN says it's fourth. The countries above are Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Monaco. The latter two aren't actual countries anyway. They're more or less tax havens. Luxembourg is a financial center and has a lot of foreigners there.

GDP is about $80,000 per person. The US is about $57,000 to put it in comparison.

On the poverty gap index Switzerland has a rate half the US's rate. And poverty is relative, it's half the US's yet has a higher GDP.

That's Switzerland, it's a rich country, it doesn't encourage ghettos, it doesn't ignore its social problems, it has a 7 person Executive where members are promoted from the legislature on a merit based system, rather than the US which is just a prom queen popularity contest. It's legislature is elected by proportional representation so all the people basically have a part to play in their politics, rather than forcing people into two political parties with no real choice.

All in all the differences between Switzerland and the US are that Switzerland is run by the Swiss, and in the US it's run by the rich, for the rich.

That plays a massive part here. Guns exacerbate the problems in the US.

Still, 17 our of 57 murders in Switzerland were committed with guns. It's quite a high number, in comparison. The thing is, it's murder rate is much lower.

Which British gun law stopped this kid from committing a mass public shooting in this school? The reason it wasn't a school shooting...the kid changed his mind.....

Teenage boy 'took shotgun to school after being bullied for being fat'

15-year-old boy arrested for taking shotgun and ammunition into school did it because he was being bullied for being too fat, fellow pupils said.

Armed police swooped on High Lane School in Nuneaton, Warks, after receiving a call from the teenager at 9.15am.

You don't know what you are talking about when it comes to guns in Britain........

 

[2aguy]

Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?

The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.

Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?

Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.

That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.

But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?

And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.

You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.

As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?

And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.

Time to get an education, me thinks.

Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.

And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.

So, gun control is supposed to stop all murders or what?

The ban in 1997 was with handguns. What it was designed to stop was mass murders, because in 1996 a guy walked into a school and shot it up. Since 1997 there haven't been any like this.

Gun murders increased due to Yardies bringing guns into the country. The UK govt decided to tackle this problem and gun murders went down again.

But, to summaries.

The UK has a murder rate 1/4 the rate of US murders.
The US has 3/4 of all murders committed with guns. About 11,000 murders a year are committed with guns.
The UK's highest murder level with guns was just under 100 in a year. Time this by 5 and you get 500, compared to 11,000. A MASSIVE difference there.

Do it work? Yes, it works.

Yes, Switzerland is safe. Why?

The IMF says Switzerland is number 2 in the world for GDP. So does the World Bank, the UN says it's fourth. The countries above are Luxembourg, Lichtenstein and Monaco. The latter two aren't actual countries anyway. They're more or less tax havens. Luxembourg is a financial center and has a lot of foreigners there.

GDP is about $80,000 per person. The US is about $57,000 to put it in comparison.

On the poverty gap index Switzerland has a rate half the US's rate. And poverty is relative, it's half the US's yet has a higher GDP.

That's Switzerland, it's a rich country, it doesn't encourage ghettos, it doesn't ignore its social problems, it has a 7 person Executive where members are promoted from the legislature on a merit based system, rather than the US which is just a prom queen popularity contest. It's legislature is elected by proportional representation so all the people basically have a part to play in their politics, rather than forcing people into two political parties with no real choice.

All in all the differences between Switzerland and the US are that Switzerland is run by the Swiss, and in the US it's run by the rich, for the rich.

That plays a massive part here. Guns exacerbate the problems in the US.

Still, 17 our of 57 murders in Switzerland were committed with guns. It's quite a high number, in comparison. The thing is, it's murder rate is much lower.

And you still have no idea what you are talking about....too bad British police have no idea what they are talking about either...

Police reveal worrying new gun gang trend

A surge in the availability of handguns is blighting Merseyside’s criminal underworld and intensifying the brutality of gangland disputes.

Police fear a rise in handgun shootings is making gun crime more lethal due to increased power packed by the weapons compared to shotguns.

At least four of the 11 shootings on Merseyside in June were carried out with handguns-including the fatal blast that killed Yusuf Sonko.

Shotguns have typically been the weapon of choice for Merseyside’s gun thugs over recent years.

But that was because they were easier to access - thousands of shotguns are legally owned in the north west, typically in rural areas. Those collections have been known to be targeted by thieves looking to sell them on to gangs.

Now, a rise in handguns is raising the stakes among Merseyside criminals.

June’s most violent shootings saw handguns used. They were blasted in home raids in Seaforth and Fazakerley and at a teen on Church Road West in Walton. All three incidents saw men rushed to hospital.

 

[2aguy]

Not necessarily.

I prefer society that is safer.

Ok but the amount of guns and gun owners has been practically been going up exponentially in the past 10-15, and crime keeps going down and down and down. This includes gun crimes. And if guns were the problem, then why is Switzerland the safest place on the planet, yet they are issued full auto assault rifles?

The only thing that risen (crime wise) in America is mass shootings. Guns have been around since our inception...so obviously there is something else culturally that is going on. There was practically zilch up until the UT shooter (who had a brain tumor pressing up against his aggression center, knew something was off, but couldn’t stop himself). After that it was pretty sparse until columbine, then there was a trickle of mass shootings. Now they are sadly not too uncommon. I don’t know if I have every single answer to why mass shootings are on the rise, but I do think a big factor is the notariaty involved in these shootings have attracted people who find that desirable and wish to one up the previous guy. Clearly they have mental health issues, but there something else going on to. There’s a clear lack of appreciation of life, graphic violence is everywhere in our culture. Video games the walking dead, every other movie, HBO, and even network television. It’s everywhere. I’m not saying we’re all slowly turning into killers or that we need to shut it down. But clearly some cannot separate what’s reality and what’s fictional.

Yes, and the crime keeps going down in the UK too. And in many other First World countries. So what?

Modern technology is making murders go down because people have other stuff to do.

That doesn't mean the US's murder rate isn't too high.

But gun crimes have doubled in the UK, weren’t they supposed to go down after gun control? Isn’t that what gun control is for?

And once again if guns are the problem, why is Switzerland the safest place on earth, with an assault rifle in every closet.

You don't understand the gun control in the UK. And yet you have an opinion on something you don't understand and haven't bothered to figure out yet.

As I told you, 4% of British people own guns. Is that a gun ban?

And you use Switzerland as "the safest place on Earth" which is fucking bullshit you pulled out of your ass, and you don't understand Switzerland either.

Time to get an education, me thinks.

Never said gun ban, I said gun control with England. Still that doesn’t make a difference in the argument, since gun crime still doubled after a decade.

And what don’t I understand about Switzerland? Switzerland is crazy safe. And you can walk around with the most “infamous” gun type to the left that they claim we need to ban, an assault rifle.

And it keeps going up....it went up 27% last year in Britain, 42% in London alone....hand gun crime is going up massively too....